With the hopes of saving its 2013 national championship, the University of Louisville is arguing that the NCAA strayed from its own playbook with an "excessive" punishment against players "who did little wrong" in the Katina Powell case.

The NCAA Committee on Infractions in June ruled Louisville must vacate as many as 123 wins, including its 2012 Final Four appearance and 2013 national championship, and repay what could be millions of dollars in shared NCAA Tournament revenue.

The decision, which Louisville's appeal is arguing ignored precedent by calling for "unfair" penalties, stemmed from a book featuring accounts by Powell, a self-proclaimed escort queen. She claimed that former director of basketball operations Andre McGee paid strippers to have sex with Louisville players and recruits, resulting in a wide-ranging investigation that uncovered multiple violations of NCAA rules.

Louisville's latest reply to the Committee on Infractions, obtained by Courier Journal through a public records request, is a key step in the NCAA's appeals process. In it, the school focused on minimizing penalties related to the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons.

None of the players from those Louisville teams is alleged to have "accepted a sex act," the school said, and they received benefits that "almost certainly would have warranted reinstatement without loss of competition."

The infraction committee's "decision simply contains no discussion of the significant impact of either of these penalties," the university's reply said. "It is always incumbent upon the (committee) to ensure that the 'totality of the penalties imposed' is not excessive, but particularly so when the penalty has such a significant effect. It did not do so here."

In concentrating on the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons, Louisville argues the infractions committee "erred" in imposing punishments on those teams, saying "none of those individuals received a sex act, obtained 'benefits' of meaningful value or engaged in culpable conduct."

"The question before the Infractions Appeals Committee is not whether these actions were unacceptable," the university's reply said, "or whether the university should be penalized because of them. ... Rather, the question before the (appeals committee) is whether the student-athletes and prospects who were unwillingly 'subjected to' McGee's schemes should be deemed so tainted by McGee's misconduct that every competition in which they participated for the remainder of their collegiate careers should be vacated, and all the revenues the university received from those games should be forfeited. The answer is no."

Louisville is now awaiting a response from the NCAA's enforcement staff, which can also submit arguments and documents to the appeal file before the Infractions Appeals Committee holds its hearing, likely this winter.

Interim Louisville President Greg Postel said this year he hopes a resolution in the case comes in January.

Beyond the fairness and precedent arguments, the university also focused its reply on monetary values and McGee's role.

Louisville said the Committee on Infractions "does not dispute" the benefits' values averaged $250 per student, a figure "too low to warrant vacation or financial penalties under its precedents."

The university mentioned previous cases that resulted in the vacation of records, saying $400 to $12,200 in average benefits per student yielded similar penalties.

"That threshold was not met here," the university's reply said.

Louisville also questioned the Committee on Infraction's argument that prior cases involving strippers or strip clubs did not apply to the case because they involved boosters and not an institutional staff member like McGee.

The penalty "is simply unfair," the reply said. "It wipes away the collegiate careers of numerous student-athletes because they were unwillingly drawn into McGee's schemes; ignores the university's exemplary efforts to investigate and redress McGee's misconduct; and imposes one of the most severe sanctions possible — the vacation of a Division I NCAA men's basketball championship, two Final Four appearances, and multiple seasons of competition — because of the participation of a handful of student-athletes who did little wrong. Precedent does not support this approach. Neither does common sense or fundamental fairness."